zlacker

So I employ quite a few artists, and I don't see the problem. This whole thing basically seems more like a filter on photoshop then something that will take a persons job.

If artists I employ want to incorporate this stuff into their workflow, that sounds great. They can get more done. There won't be less artists on payroll, just more and better art will be produced. I don't even think it is at the point of incorporating it into a workflow yet though, so this really seems like a nothing burger to me.

At least github copilot is useful. This stuff is really not useful in a professional context, and the idea that it is going to take artists jobs really doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, if there aren't any artists then who exactly do I have that is using these AI tools to make new designs? If you think the answer to that is just some intern, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

>>pfisch+(OP)
With respect, you need to pay more attention to how and why these networks are used. People write complex prompts containing things like "trending on artstation" or "<skilled artist's name>" then use unmodified AI output in places like blog articles, profile headers, etc where you normally would have put art made by an artist.

Yes, artists can also utilize AI as a photoshop filter, and some artists have started using it to fill in backgrounds in drawings, etc. Inpainting can also be used to do unimportant textures for 3d models. But that doesn't mean that AI art is no threat to artists' livelihoods, especially for scenarios like "I need a dozen illustrations to go with these articles" where quality isn't so important to the commissioner that they are willing to spend an extra few hundred bucks instead of spending 15 minutes in midjourney or stable diffusion.

As long as these networks continue being trained on artists' work without permission or compensation, they will continue to improve in output quality and muscle the actual artists out of work.

>>keving+81
If you are looking for a bunch of low quality art there are tons of free sources for that already. If this is what you mean when you say "putting artists out of work" you are really talking about less than 1% of where artist money is spent.

>>keving+81
That's only one side of a coin. If a tool is so advanced that it takes away the easy applications, then it's also advanced enough to create novel fields.

Take for example video games. They distracted many people from movies, but also created a huge new field, hungry for talents. Or another one, quite a few genres calcified into distinctive boring styles over the years (see anything related to manga/anime as an example) simply because those styles require less mechanical work and are cheaper to produce. They could use a deep refresh. This tech will also lead to novel applications, created by those who embraced it and are willing to learn the increasingly complex toolset. That's what been happening the last several decades, which have seen several tech revolutions.

>As long as these networks continue being trained on artists' work

This misses the point. The real power of those things is not in the collection of styles baked into it. It's in the ability to learn new stuff. Finetuning and style transfer is what all the wizards do. Construct your own visual style by hand, make it produce more of that. And that's not just about static 2D images; neither do 2D illustrators represent all artists in the broad sense. Everyone who types "blah blah in the style of Ilya Kuvshinov" or is using img2img or whatever is just missing out, because the same stuff is going to be everywhere real soon.

>>pfisch+v2
OK, so your argument here is "it doesn't matter because the art being replaced by AI is cheap and/or mass-produced"? What happens once the quality of the network-generated art goes up and it's able to displace more expensive works? What is the basis for your argument that this is "less than 1%"?

>>keving+re
Art will get better and we will have artists that use AI tools to produce a lot more of it faster and entirely new professions will emerge as an evolution in art occurs and the world gets better.

This is like saying that photoshop is going to put all the artists out of work because one artist can now do the work of a team of people drawing by hand. So far these AIs are just tools. Tools help humans to produce more and the economy keeps chugging ever upwards.

There is no upper limit of how much art we need. Marvel movies and videogames will just keep looking better and better as our artists increase their capabilities using AI tools to assist them.

Daz3d didn't put modelers and artists out of work, and what Daz and iClone can do is way way more impressive(and useful in a professional setting) than AI Art.